33 retired US military generals and admirals say climate change threatens US national security - do you agree?

A little difficult to blame *this* turn of events on America-hating anti-capitalist communists.

And does Jack really think that these guys don't know about tar sands, and just how sticky a problem (pun intended) it is to get useful fuel out of them?

Jack also mentioned food.

If he looks at a globe, he will see that the area possibly opened up by warming is, as a matter of geometry, smaller than the area threated by it.

George, you don't have to read the question, but if you can't be bothered to, then you shouldn't pretend to answer it.

Alright, you asked for spin so here it is.

It sounds like these generals (and other vets and vet groups) don't like war and soldiers being killed (contrary to what most people think about military personnel). And it also sounds like they don't like foreign dependence on oil either. Foreign oil dependence means sometimes you have to fight for oil, sometimes oil money gets into the hands of terrorists and none of that is good for military personnel (among others, i.e. national security).

Yes, they throw in the term climate change because they have to since that's the primary reason for reducing carbon usage. But like I've said a thousand times, some people like the idea of carbon reduction regardless if the global temperatures go up, down or sideways. These guys like the idea of not giving trillions of dollars to Middle East countries (and the negative repercussions that go along with that). Actually, that's a pretty good point.

If anyone reads that article as support for the science of CO2 causing disasterous warming, then they are better at spinning than I.

Yes, that's entirely my point of view and entirely speculation. I have my grandfather who was killed in WWII to thank for allowing me to live in a society where I can openly speculate without fear of arrest or worse.

Edit: I'll have to do some digging into the Trueman National Security Project. My initial impression is that they are a Liberal front group. (yes, speculation again, give me some time.)

You should be worried when the military wants to solve climate change. A military solution usually involves blowing up or killing the percieved source of the problem.

Yes. And not only that but the climate refugees who will be swarming our borders in search of food.

The Battle of Trafalgar (21 October 1805) proved the most significant naval engagement of the Napoleonic Wars and the pivotal naval battle of the 19th century.

The British Royal Navy led by Lord Horatio Nelson destroyed a combined French and Spanish fleet and in so doing guaranteed to the United Kingdom uncontested control of the world's oceans for more than 100 years. Because the British won the Battle of Trafalgar, they, not the French, would rule an expanded empire that included India, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, around the world and a world economy with London, not Paris, as the pre-eminent financial seat of Europe. At the end of the battle, Lord Nelson passed away.

His final words were "Kiss me Hardy, the anthropogenic global warming is killing me!"

So, the answer is YES! Anthropogenic global warming is a threat to national security, look at what happened to Lord Nelson!

Wasn't that what the Iraqi war was all about, gaining control and access to Iraqi oil reserves. Anyone says differently are truly fooling themselves. Blood for oil.

Furthermore:

In a number of years it could well be control and access to fresh water, nations will fight wars to "protect" their interests as they see them...they always have, I don't see that changing.

Everything from expanding deserts,rising sea levels, migrating insect populations, spreading of plant diease and molds, droughts from changing rainfall patterns and so on, will cause political instability as human populations also be come displaced and suffer from food and fresh water shortages.

Everyone's security will be threaten.

You will get generals and admirals on all sides of an issue. I remember Stansfeild Turner. The fact is most admirals and generals are conservative and against things like cap and trade. You can say AGW poses a threat. Rabid wambats pose a threat but it isn't one I am going to lose any sleep over.

I just did a random search on your list. Lt. Gen Claudia Kennedy caught my attention since it is mighty impressive for a woman to reach that high and she was in fact the first. Look her up on Wiki and you will see an impressive set of credentials. here are her political credentials:

Kennedy endorsed Senator John Kerry for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination in September 2003, and served as an advisor to the Kerry campaign. She sometimes was mentioned as a possible nominee for Secretary of Defense in a Kerry administration.

She endorsed anti-war politicians Eric Massa and Patrick Murphy in 2006. In 2007 and 2008 she endorsed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama in their respective campaigns for the presidency.[3] She was discussed as a potential vice presidential choice for the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama.[2]

No shocker there.

Wow, I knocked that one out of the park.

First, when it comes to war and conflict, food has always been a better motivator than energy.

(Explanation of food insecurity) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_insecurity

With the population increasing, a failure of the earth to warm up enough to open up agriculture in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia is a far greater threat than what is being proposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over_population

Second, when it comes to energy, if we our government is really fighting for oil, and was willing to accept more expensive energy, then the tar sands and shale in the USA alone would eliminate that problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands#USA

Thus, if you believe that this war is over oil, you would have to accept that more expensive forms of energy (the ones that require legislation to get us to use them) will not solve the war problem.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfN...

Edit @Paul B:

"difficult to blame *this* ... on America-hating anti-capitalist communists."

I as well as the conservatives here, are tickled that Dana is providing evidence of a military/CIA conspiracy to use global warming to justify funding. So, why spoil a good thing with juvenile name calling?

"does Jack really think that these guys don't know about tar sands...?"

Of course they do. The Canadians are exporting oil to us from Alberta tar sands now. It is a matter of cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands#Production

"The area possibly opened up [for agriculture] ... is,..., smaller than the area threated by it."

Nope. Very little area is threatened by it,

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/0...

and not only would huge swaths of land become available, but the growing season would improve in most areas now farmed.

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#...

It will be interesting to see the Rushes and the Becks spin this one. They'll likely just ignore it. If the whole military was in on AGW they might have to become pacifists. Ultimately, their credo is "whatever it takes" to maintain cashflow.

Thirty three out of how many thousands or tens of thousands. You get the ignorant and opportunists even in the military. Who cares if there are is a tiny percentage of generals that fall for the latest leftist political scam. They might just be prostituting themselves in hopes of getting some job. Democrats are known to sell favors like that.